In a suit for perpetual injunction, the plaintiff's possession prevails over claims of title disputes, emphasizing the need for factual evidence of possession rather than just title claims.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100 - Property Law - Second appeal concerning perpetual injunction and title claim over agricultural land - Respondent obtained occupancy rights certificate and supported claim with various documented evidence regarding ownership and possession - Appellants failed to provide credible evidence to support their claim of ownership - Courts held that possession matters, not title at this stage. (Paras 26, 27)

(B) Evidence - The burden of proof lies with the appellants to establish their claim of possession, which they failed to do - The findings of both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court remained unchallenged as they were based on credible documentation. (Paras 24, 25)

Facts of the case:
The respondent claimed ownership of agricultural land purchased through a registered sale deed and upheld by several legal documents, while the appellants disputed possession and sought dismissal of the injunction suit. They argued the respondent's title was defective and did not prove possession. (Paras 3, 10)

Findings of Court:
Both Trial Court and First Appellate Court supported the respondent’s claims with documented proof of ownership and continuous possession, ultimately resolving the dispute in favor of the respondent. (Paras 24, 26)

Issues: Whether the First Appellate Court erred in its findings related to possession and whether the Respondent's suit for injunction was maintainable despite a claim of title dispute by the Appellants. (Paras 12)

Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that in a suit for perpetual injunction, prima facie possession is the critical factor, and the questioning of title must follow separate legal processes, implying that without challenging existing titles or ORCs, the appeal by the appellants cannot stand. (Paras 27)

Result: Second Appeal is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of ownership and possession (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. trial and appellate court findings on evidence (Para 8 , 10 , 12)
3. second appeal status and maintaining precedents (Para 11 , 24 , 25)
4. evidence of title and need for declaration (Para 15 , 18 , 21 , 22)
5. conclusion and dismissal of appeal (Para 27 , 28)

JUDGMENT :

RENUKA YARA, J.

Heard Sri Rohan Aloor, learned counsel for the appellants on the question of admission. Perused the record.

2. This Second Appeal is preferred aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree in A.S.No.14 of 2023, dated 10.06.2025 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge at Mahabubnagar, confirming the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.101 of 2011 dated 17.03.2022 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge Mahabubnagar.

3. The Respondent No. 1 originally filed a suit seeking relief of perpetual injunction against the appellants herein and respondents 2 to 6 with respect to property consisting of agricultural land to an extent of Ac.1.00 Gts. out of Ac.9.33 Gts. in Sy.No.154/2 situated at Yenugonda Village, Mahabubnagar Mandal and District. The Respondent No.1 claimed to have purchased the suit schedule property through a registered sale deed from appellant Nos.2 and 8, respondent No.3 and fathers of some of the appellants/respondent Nos.2 to 6, who were occupants of the suit land. The suit schedule property is Inam land. The respondent No.1 secured occupancy rights certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar after due enquiry. The respondent No.1 claimed to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property ever since its purchase. The revenue authorities have issued title deed and pattadar passbook in favour of respondent No.1 with respect to suit schedule property. In the year 2002, when there was interference from appellant No.8, father of respondent No.4 along with their associates, the respondent No. 1 filed suit in O.S.No.240 of 2002 seeking perpetual injunction and said suit was decreed. Thereafter, in the year 2006, respondent No.1 obtained permission from Yenugonda Grampanchayath for construction of compound wall around the suit schedule property along with a room meant for use by a watchman. The construction of compound wall and a room for watchman was meant for preventing encroachment from others i.e., to protect the land from land grabbers. While things stood thus, the daughter of Respondent No.1 completed her MBBS education from Gandhi Medical College, Hyderabad and went to United States of America for super specialisation. At that time, Respondent No.1 obtained bank loan from State Bank of Hyderabad, Padmavathi Colony Branch, Mahaboobnagar for funding her daughter's education by submitting the title deeds of the suit schedule property as security. On account of financial problems, respondent No.1 could not raise the compound wall from ground level to upper level.

4. The respondent No. 1 got a borewell dug and also obtained electricity connection to the suit schedule property. The respondent No.1 was not residing locally and taking advantage of the absence of respondent No.1, the appellants herein and respondent Nos.2 to 6 made attempts to occupy the suit schedule property. The respondent No.1 resisted such attempts. However, the police did not take any action though complaint was given. In the circumstances, suit for perpetual injunction was filed to safeguard the possession of respondent No.1 over the suit schedule property.

5. The appellants and respondent Nos.2 to 6 herein have filed written statement denying the case of respondent No. 1 with respect to her ownership and possession over the suit schedule property. Further, the appellants have expressed shock and surprise over grant of occupancy rights certificate by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahaboobnagar in favour of respondent No.1 with respect to suit schedule property. According to the appellants, the Revenue Divisional Officer has issued occupancy rights cer